Liam Twomey (Fine Gael)

In light of the report, no strong political attacks were made on anyone. Instead, it was a question of asking for an examination of the matter and for some straightforward answers.

The more the Government tries to block discussion, the more suspicious I get about the report's background and what it is the Government is afraid of. Objecting to something this strongly means the Government is afraid to have the type of to and fro discussion on a report seen at committees. This worries me. Concerns might have been raised about the luck of the successful applicants, two of whom got a large tranche of the tonnage handed out by the scheme, but discussions of that type occur. However, when the Ombudsman raises concerns about the way in which the scheme was established and administered, we need a deep discussion if we are to fulfil our roles as Members of the Oireachtas.

This is probably the new Minister of State's first opportunity to get involved in a meaty issue in his Department. Perhaps it is an opportunity for him to put his stamp on the matter and to support a call for a full debate on the reason so many concerns have been raised by the Ombudsman and the question of why the Government is afraid to answer them.

Our previous debate on the issue was not emotive. No one tried to claim the Government was the big bad wolf or that it was hammering down, so to speak, some poor, unfortunate family. The circumstances had been pointed out and we avoided being overly emotional and overly political because most Senators wanted straightforward answers. We are seeking the same today. Why does the Government object so much to the discussion of this issue in a public forum? The Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food voted to block a discussion. I have sat on other Oireachtas committees and there is usually a political aspect to a vote that is called to block a discussion of a document. However, when the Government calls a vote to obstruct a public debate on a report of the Ombudsman, do the Senators opposite not view it as a serious issue? In light of concepts like democracy, transparency, openness and accountability to the people, I would have concerns about a Government party that called such a vote. It is not important that Senators might wish to say outside the House that they are favourably disposed towards a debate. Instead, they should exercise their power to call for the debate. We will revert to this issue repeatedly until the Government starts giving satisfactory answers. Clearly, there is a reason it is not prepared to discuss the report fully. We want straightforward answers.

I hope the Minister of State has read the report and the previous debates on this issue, that he has noted the concerns raised and that he will respond to them. He should not give us the reheated speech the then Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, gave on 18 February. The Minister of State should not take issue with the same two points. Neither should he tell the House that certain matters are not relevant. I do not want to rehearse my speech. I raised an issue about a fisherman in County Wexford that I am sure would be of greater concern to the Minister of State, but I will not discuss it again. I hope he will not insult the intelligence of the House by providing a reheated speech. My memory might not be great, but I can remember most of what was said on 18 February. Some good points were raised and I hope the Minister of State has read the contributions which were made only a few short weeks ago. The Minister of State's response should supply straightforward answers. Otherwise, he will develop a habit of returning to the House to answer questions on the report.